Inclusion as a Process of School Transformation: What Booth and Ainscow Said About Inclusion
Tony Booth and Mel Ainscow are among the foremost thinkers in the field of inclusive education. Their work redefined inclusion from a narrow concern with integrating students with disabilities into mainstream schools to a broader, systemic process of restructuring schools so that all learners can participate and achieve. This post explores Booth and Ainscow’s conceptualisation of inclusion, with particular reference to From Them to Us (1998) and the Index for Inclusion (2000, 2002, 2011). It examines their central ideas of inclusion as a process, their tripartite framework of cultures, policies, and practices, and their influence on educational leadership, curriculum design, and school improvement.
1. Introduction
The notion of inclusion in education has evolved significantly over the last three decades. Initially rooted in the special education discourse of the 1980s and 1990s, inclusion was often equated with the placement of students with disabilities in mainstream classrooms. Tony Booth and Mel Ainscow challenged this reductionist understanding by reframing inclusion as a continuous, systemic process concerned with removing barriers to participation and learning for all students (Booth & Ainscow, 1998; 2002). Their work has profoundly influenced educational policies and practices in the United Kingdom and globally, particularly through the Index for Inclusion, which offers a practical and reflective tool for schools to examine and transform their cultures, policies, and practices.
2. Inclusion as a Process, Not a Product
Booth and Ainscow (2002) conceptualised inclusion as a process rather than a fixed state. In their view, inclusion is “about the presence, participation and achievement of all students” (Booth & Ainscow, 2002, p. 3). It is never fully achieved; rather, it involves an ongoing commitment to identifying and removing barriers that hinder students’ participation in school life.
This perspective contrasts sharply with traditional integration models, which focus primarily on relocating students with special educational needs into mainstream classrooms without altering the structures or attitudes of the schools themselves. For Booth and Ainscow, inclusion is a continuous movement towards greater equality, participation, and community, requiring reflective leadership and collaborative school cultures (Ainscow, Booth, & Dyson, 2006).
3. The Values-Based Approach to Inclusion
A key feature of Booth and Ainscow’s thinking is their emphasis on values. The Index for Inclusion is grounded in the values of equity, respect for diversity, participation, and community (Booth & Ainscow, 2002). Rather than seeing inclusion as a technical problem to be solved, they present it as a moral and ethical commitment.
They argue that inclusive education should be guided by questions such as:
-
Who is excluded from participation and why?
-
What values shape our educational practices?
-
How can we create a community where every learner feels they belong?
Through such questions, schools are invited to reflect critically on their ethos and move from a culture of deficit and labelling toward one of acceptance and mutual respect (Ainscow & Booth, 2011).
4. The Framework of Cultures, Policies and Practices
One of Booth and Ainscow’s most influential contributions is the tripartite model of inclusion as expressed in the Index for Inclusion (2002):
-
Creating Inclusive Cultures – building a secure, accepting, and collaborative community where diversity is valued and all members feel they belong.
-
Producing Inclusive Policies – developing policies that promote participation and reduce exclusion by aligning structures, resources, and priorities with inclusive values.
-
Evolving Inclusive Practices – transforming teaching and learning approaches to respond to diversity and support participation for all learners.
This framework functions both as a diagnostic and developmental tool, encouraging schools to self-assess, plan, and act collectively. It positions inclusion not as a programme but as a whole-school improvement strategy (Booth & Ainscow, 2002; Ainscow, Booth, & Dyson, 2006).
5. Barriers to Learning and Participation
A distinctive shift in Booth and Ainscow’s work is their focus on barriers to learning and participation rather than individual deficits. They argue that difficulties in learning often arise from school structures, teaching methods, and cultural expectations rather than from learners themselves (Booth & Ainscow, 2002).
This shift has major implications for teacher education and curriculum design. It suggests that teachers must examine how their practices—curricular content, classroom management, assessment methods—may exclude certain learners. Inclusion thus becomes a collective responsibility, requiring professional reflection and flexibility (Ainscow, 2005).
6. The Index for Inclusion as a Tool for Change
The Index for Inclusion (Booth & Ainscow, 2002) has been widely adopted and adapted in numerous countries. It provides indicators and questions that guide schools through a self-evaluation process. For instance, schools are invited to discuss whether all children feel valued, whether policies promote equity, and whether classroom practices encourage participation.
The Index is designed to be participatory: it involves teachers, students, parents, and community members in reflecting on what inclusion means in their context. This participatory approach aligns with Booth and Ainscow’s belief that change is most sustainable when owned by the school community itself (Ainscow, Booth, & Dyson, 2006).
7. Inclusion and Educational Leadership
For Booth and Ainscow, inclusion is inseparable from educational leadership and curriculum design. Inclusive leadership, they argue, requires moral purpose, collaboration, and the ability to challenge exclusionary practices. Leaders must facilitate dialogue about values, allocate resources equitably, and model inclusive behaviour (Ainscow & Sandill, 2010).
In this sense, curriculum leadership is not merely about subject content but about constructing a learning environment that fosters participation and achievement for all. As Ainscow (2005) emphasises, the most successful inclusive schools are those that see diversity as a resource for learning rather than as a problem to be managed.
8. Global Influence and Adaptations
Since its publication, the Index for Inclusion has been translated into over 40 languages and adapted for early childhood education, higher education, and community development (Booth & Ainscow, 2011). UNESCO and other international bodies have drawn on its framework to promote inclusive policy reform worldwide.
Its flexibility allows it to be used across diverse contexts—from high-income countries with well-developed support systems to low-resource settings where inclusion is primarily about basic access and participation (Miles & Singal, 2010).
9. Critiques and Limitations
Despite its influence, Booth and Ainscow’s work has also faced critiques. Some argue that the Index is overly idealistic and difficult to implement within systems dominated by high-stakes testing and rigid accountability frameworks (Slee, 2011). Others note that inclusion, as they define it, may be constrained by limited resources, teacher capacity, or conflicting policy agendas (Florian, 2014).
Nevertheless, Booth and Ainscow (2011) acknowledge these challenges, maintaining that the process of inclusion requires “courage to question what is taken for granted” and persistence in the face of systemic barriers.
10. Conclusion
Booth and Ainscow’s contribution lies in reimagining inclusion as a transformative process rooted in shared values, critical reflection, and community participation. Their work provides a framework for schools to examine how cultures, policies, and practices can evolve to ensure participation and achievement for all learners.
In essence, inclusion for Booth and Ainscow is not about where students learn, but how schools learn — how they reflect, adapt, and grow to embrace diversity as the foundation of educational improvement.
References
- Ainscow, M. (2005). Developing inclusive education systems: what are the levers for change? Journal of Educational Change, 6(2), 109–124.
- Ainscow, M., & Booth, T. (2011). Index for Inclusion: Developing learning and participation in schools (3rd ed.). Centre for Studies on Inclusive Education (CSIE).
- Ainscow, M., Booth, T., & Dyson, A. (2006). Improving Schools, Developing Inclusion. Routledge.
- Ainscow, M., & Sandill, A. (2010). Developing inclusive education systems: The role of organisational cultures and leadership. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 14(4), 401–416.
- Booth, T., & Ainscow, M. (Eds.). (1998). From Them to Us: An International Study of Inclusion in Education. Routledge.
- Booth, T., & Ainscow, M. (2002). Index for Inclusion: Developing Learning and Participation in Schools. Centre for Studies on Inclusive Education (CSIE).
- Florian, L. (2014). What counts as evidence of inclusive education? European Journal of Special Needs Education, 29(3), 286–294.
- Miles, S., & Singal, N. (2010). The Education for All and inclusive education debate: Conflict, contradiction or opportunity? International Journal of Inclusive Education, 14(1), 1–15.
- Slee, R. (2011). The Irregular School: Exclusion, Schooling and Inclusive Education. Routledge.
